Talk:Lori Loughlin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing the trivia tag

Anyone have a problem if I remove {{trivia}}? I really don't like that tag unless the trivia is obscenely long and than it should be moved to ita own article, but trivia definitely has a place here, and this article is not too long at all. Anyone mind if I remove it? -Mike Payne 03:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the firm proof that Zac Efron loved Lori Loughlin?

i think that having a crush on someone and loving them is a different maybe he though she pretty

is a different what? Finish your sentence. Maybe he thought she pretty much did what? Finish that sentence also.. MS Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes

I have made a few changes which significantly brought up the quality of the article.

• Trivia sections are discouraged flat-out on Wikipedia. I have integrated any important information into the article and deleted the rest. I moved the pronunciation of her name into the introduction and deleted her birthday as it was already present in the sidebar. I deleted her body measurements as well as the mention of Zac Efron's crush as the information was useless and uncited. I also deleted the "Spin City" trivia because it's not trivia but one of her roles. I'd put it in the "Selected Filmography" section, but it is supposed to be selective, and it didn't seem like a large enough role.
• I deleted both of the extended links in the article. The first was a Youtube video of her first commercial spot. The video provides no further information on Loughlin. The second extended link was Ice Skater Sasha Cohen's blog. I assume the link was put on the article as vandalism, as the blog did not mention Loughlin.
• Now, I couldn't do this because I'm not familiar with Loughlin, but the "personal life" should be integrated into the "biography" section. Also, this article is desperately in need of references.--DarshaAssant 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Edge of Night

Only three episodes? Really? I watched that show when it was on; I thought she was in a lot more than three episodes. MS Dania fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Image rotation glitch

Every single time I click on her picture in the infobox, it rotates upside down, someone should fix it.

Happening here too on desktop, only on the Media Viewer page and not the thumbnail or Commons. 9³ (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Daughter on yacht of USC trustee

There have been a few revert edits, without proper justification, removing information about daughter Olivia Jade's being on the yacht of a USC trustee, Rick Caruso. The social closeness between the daughter and the USC trustee (via the trustee's daughter) is certainly pertinent to the scandal. Removal of this material is POV. Here is the quote the editor has been trying to delete: "On March 13, TMZ reported that one of her daughters, Olivia Jade, was in the Bahamas with her friend, Gianna "Gigi" Caruso, on the yacht of Gianna's father, Rick Caruso, a member of the USC board of trustees, when news of the scandal broke." Dogru144 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"Without proper justification"? That's ludicrous! The information has nothing to do with Loughlin, who the article is about, but the scandal in general. As I stated, it's peripheral to her and not pertinent in the slightest. There's no reason for it to be there--Fradio71 (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with Fradio71 that this information is not pertinent to Loughlin's article. It is pertinent to the event, but as such belongs at 2019 college admissions bribery scandal not here. AutumnKing (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the material is not pertinent to the Loughlin article. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree not pertinent.. this is what's referred to as "circumstantial evidence". Saying that information solely about her daughter is certainly pertinent to the scandal is itself POV, because it requires the reader to make assumptions about the nature of the meeting that aren't apparent on its face. In fact, her meeting with a USC tends to indicate she had a string candidacy and could have been admitted without the extra "help" from her admissions counselor. It's not illegal or against any rules to gain admission to USC because of personal connections with school officials.

References

FWIW I’d never heard of this woman, her oeuvre, or her husband, before reports of their daughter’s fraudulent admission to USC. Martha Stewart, OTOH, was a well known figure before fibs to the FBI about calling her stockbroker. To me, and possibly others, Miss Loughlin is notable only for her criminal prosecution. I’m not entirely oblivious to Hollywood; some of its well known names graced my youth. AndersW (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammar mistake: Their vs there

Could someone please change "permitted to retain there passports" to "permitted to retain their passports"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.73.243 (talk • contribs) 12:27, April 3, 2019 (UTC)

Already done. Meters (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

New charge

On April 9, she and her husband were also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, which has a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, supervised release of three years, and a $500,000 fine. --2604:2000:E010:1100:E9DE:51CD:31F9:AFB6 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, sentencing guideline information from her combined charges here .. https://people.com/crime/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-possible-sentences/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E010:1100:24DD:DC3A:BBCB:6ED6 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Vandalism in first paragraph

Someone appears to be motivated to add felony conviction to first paragraph. I think discussion in second paragraph (I added sentencing outcome) is sufficient. In an effort to avoid an edit war, hoping for a discussion here. 212.102.52.134 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely. She has not become notable as a felon, she has been notable for decades as an actress. The fraud conviction is adequately elsewhere covered in the article as stated above.MB 20:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. She has now become quite notable for her crime and it is widely covered in reliable sources.--70.190.179.93 (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

And the article devotes plenty to it. But over the course of her life, this is not that significant. Go read Martha Stewart for comparison. She is not described as a felon in the first sentence nor is felon one of her occupations listed in the infobox. MB 03:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Same with the categories. This is not her notability, and the gleeful additions of the word "felony" should indeed be limited, per Willie Nelson, Tim Allen, Johnny Cash, Martha Stewart, and a zillion others of American "Hollywood royalty" that have been incarcerated, but not notable for same. Also, the Felicity Huffman article is in even worse shape than this one. These are WEIGHT issues. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:COPDEF tells us to categorize based on the reasons for Loughlin's notability. In this case, to a significant degree that those other people aren't, Loughlin is notable for being involved with the college admission scandal. She would have been in the news about it even if she had been completely non-notable before (but yet was somehow still wealthy). That isn't true for many of those others. I agree that it doesn't need to be in the first sentence, but the category is DUE. Gbear605 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Still, as of right now, (18:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC) ) 1/3 of the LEDE is devoted to this event. Per standards set by similar articles, that's just Wikipedia dancing on the grave. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that it should state within the first section and the short desc. that she is a convicted felon. Most people that I know of, including me, only know her because she is a felon. To me this just seems like an attempt to save face, consciously or not, instead of a protective measure since:

• 1) she may be more well known as a felon than as a celebrity, especially among younger persons;
• 2) we (the users on this talk site and typical editors) are not the average Wikipedia users. The average user often reads the first paragraph of an article and then leaves the article. Unless someone is researching the actress, among other things, people are not going to see that she is a felon. As such, if an average person who has never heard about her visits this page after hearing that she exists (via a late show interview or w/e) and wants to learn a little about the actress, all they would learn is that she is an actress; and
• 3) most people do not know the difference between a felony and misdemeanor, if they even know what those are (such as people from places that use indictable and summary offenses). This will lead to people thinking that she is not a felon while someone else, such as Henry Nicholas, is known to be a felon even though their sentences don’t even fit the general definitions of a felony or a misdemeanor, further adding to the readers confusion with the almost ambiguous and inconsistent absorption of information from this site due to the several case by case decisions on what to state and not to state in the same portions of different articles depending on the subjective views of certain editors instead of consistent, cite wide, standards.

- Fluffy89502 (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, which we abide by, and which addresses the issue of WEIGHT, please read and understand that section. This person is notable for practically her whole life as an actress. And, now she's screwed up. Right now, the entire second paragraph of the LEDE (1/3 of the lede) is about this event. As Wikipedia is Not the News, that amount of space in the lede alone is close to giving too much weight to this single event. Per BLP we have to be even-handed editing biographical articles dealing with living people. This event is greatly impacting her life in the short run, but in balance is unlikely to be the defining event of her notability. We are, after all, an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. See the articles of the others mentioned above for contrast. There is also a whole section in the body of the article devoted to her conviction, which is appropriate for MoS compliance. Also, the continued addition of mentions of felony as INFOBOX fodder, "occupation", etc. or in the lede sentence is over-kill and not NPOV. Please read that section of the MoS for additional clarity. Infoboxes are 1) actually optional for an article; 2) a summary of the article; 3) never designed to have everything put in them (per WEIGHT).

As to your points above: #1) That conjecture on your part would need a citation from at least one reliable source backing it. Our 'feelings' or prior knowledge about an article subject are not relevant and don't count on BLP articles. #2) The Lede IS the summary of the article; built exactly for that person who is just skimming quickly for information. #3) The difference between a felony and misdemeanor is not what this article is about. They have their own articles, so blue-linking them is quite sufficient. Thanks, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Lede Paragraph weight

Let's try it again. The LEDE does not need detailed information. It is a summary, per our user guide (the MoS) of what is detailed in the article body. Key word is: "summary." GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)